ERIC ED426502: The Curriculum Inquiry Cycle: Improving Learning and Teaching. Making Decisions.

28 Pages·1998·0.29 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
EA 029 608
ED 426 502
Carr, Maureen Sherry; Braunger, Jane
AUTHOR
The Curriculum Inquiry Cycle: Improving Learning and
TITLE
Teaching. Making Decisions.
Northwest Regional Educational Lab., Portland, OR.
INSTITUTION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),
SPONS AGENCY
Washington, DC.
1998-00-00
PUB DATE
NOTE
27p.
RJ96006501
CONTRACT
NWREL Document Reproduction, 101 S.W. Main Street, Suite
AVAILABLE FROM
500, Portland, OR 97204-3297; Tel: [phone]; Fax:
503-275-0458; e-mail: [email protected]; Web site:
http://www.nwrel.org ($8.25 prepaid).
Guides - Non-Classroom (055)
PUB TYPE
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
Academic Standards; *Curriculum; Curriculum Design;
DESCRIPTORS
*Curriculum Development; Elementary Secondary Education;
*Teacher Developed Materials; Teacher Participation;
Teachers
ABSTRACT
The Curriculum Inquiry Cycle is a professional development
process that supports educators as they match curriculum and instruction to
state standards, local needs, and student characteristics. Ways in which to
implement this cycle are provided in this booklet. There are four phases in
the cycle: examining current practice, making decisions, creating optimal
learning environments, and researching the classroom. The goal of the
curriculum inquiry cycle is to create a self-sustaining process, applicable
to all areas of the curriculum, for improving learning and teaching. Teams
composed of teachers and administrators from a school or district can engage
in the curriculum inquiry cycle in a variety of ways, onsite or offsite. It
begins with teachers' personal knowledge and experience by asking teachers
key questions for making decisions, such as what guides their decisions about
priorities for student learning and how they articulate their beliefs about
curriculum. Curriculum inquiry cycle engages the teachers in various
activities that call for teachers to connect ideas about curriculum to
beliefs about learning and teaching, so that they can map standards to
curriculum, learn about students from demographics, discover activities and
evidence of student learning, and visualize the learning context. An appendix
provides a variety of participant handouts. Contains 13 references. (RJM)
********************************************************************************
*
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
*
*
from the original document.
*
********************************************************************************
tr)
The Curriculum
Inquiry Cycle:
Improving Learning
and Teaching
Making Decisions
BEST COPY AVAILABL
Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory
MINI
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
Planning and Program Development
Curriculum and Instruction Services
Rex Hagans, Director
Curriculum and Instruction Services
101 SW Main, Suite 500
Portland, Oregon 97204-3297
[phone]
Fax [phone]
http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/ci/index.html
Image copyright © 1998 Gambee Hammons Creative, Inc.
Copyright © 1998 Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
Appreciation is extended to the many educators and researchers who provided information and
guidance in the development of this publication. Grateful acknowledgement is given to the
review panel for their valuable input: Cherie McGrew and Michelann Ortloff, Portland Public
Schools; Barbara Wallace, Multnomah Educational Service District; and Anne Batey, Dawn
Dzubay, Denise Jarrett-Weeks, and Lesley Thompson, NWREL. In addition, the authors thank
Sharon Johnson for excellent technical support and editing, Gambee Hammons Creative for
design, and Michael Heavener for production.
This publication has been funded at least in part with federal funds from the U.S. Department of
Education under contract number RJ96006501. The content of this publication does not neces-
sarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education or any other agency of
the United States government.
The Curriculum
Inquiry Cycle:
Improving Learning
and Teaching
Making Decisions
Maureen Sherry Carr, Ph.D.
Associate
Jane Braunger, Ed.D.
Senior Associate
Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory
Table of Contents
Overview of the Curriculum Inquiry Cycle
1
Making Decisions
3
Overview of Activities for Making Decisions
7
References
12
Appendix: Participant Handouts
13
Overview of the
Curriculum Inquiry Cycle
What is it?
he Curriculum Inquiry Cycle is a professional development process that supports educators
T
as they make curriculum and instruction decisions responsive to state standards, local
needs, and student characteristics. Its focus is the classroom. There are four phases in the cycle:
Examining Current Practice, Making Decisions, Creating Optimal Learning Environments, and
Researching Our Classrooms.
The goal of the Curriculum Inquiry Cycle is to create a self-sustaining process, applicable to all
areas of the curriculum, for improving learning and teaching.
How does it work?
eams composed of teachers and administrators from a school or district engage in the
T
1 Curriculum Inquiry Cycle either onsite during the school year, in a five-day summer insti-
tute hosted by the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL), or in a combination of
summer institute and onsite follow-up. Individual needs and interests will vary: Teams who wish
to experience the full cycle may find the summer institute and follow-ups most beneficial; other
teams may wish to use selected phases of the model onsite, to support curriculum renewal work
already under way.
What will be gained from the process?
participants will:
Learn a team approach to curriculum inquiry that supports curriculum planning and instruc-
tional design
Plan strategies to involve other staff (and, as desired, students, parents, and community
members) in the process
Analyze current curriculum and instruction in light of 1) teacher beliefs about learning;
2) models of curriculum; and 3) national, state, and local standards (Examining Current
Practice)
Develop shared understandings and set priorities for effective, engaging curriculum and
instruction in a content area (Making Decisions)
Determine critical learning experiences to ensure student achievement of agreed-upon goals
(Creating Optimal Learning Experiences)
Decide teaching/learning questions to study in classroom settings and design a process for
sharing findings (Researching Our Classrooms)
Develop guidelines for local curriculum documents, decisionmaking processes, and class-
room practices.
1
6
Where can interested parties get more information?
NWREL Curriculum and Instruction Services staff, Dr. Jane Braunger and Dr. Maureen
Sherry Carr, can answer questions about the Curriculum Inquiry Cycle and help plan
onsite use of the model appropriate to school and district needs. They can be reached at
NWREL, 101 SW Main, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97204, fax [phone]. Dr. Braunger can
be reached by phone at [phone] or by e-mail at [email protected]. Dr. Carr can be
reached by phone at [phone] or by e-mail at [email protected]. Information on the
Curriculum Inquiry Cycle is also available on NWREL's Web site (http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/
ci/index.html).
2
Making Decisions
hallenging academic standards have significant support among policymakers, educators,
C
the business sector, and parents (Ravitch, 1992). It makes sense to most people that if we
set expectations and require students to meet them and teachers to teach to them, academic
excellence will become the norm. However, a set of standards, no matter how finely crafted, will
not create the conditions for learning required to actively engage learners in a meaningful edu-
cational enterprise. Only teachers can make the classroom decisions necessary to restructure
curriculum, instruction, and assessment in a way that will lead to greater student learning.
The Curriculum Inquiry Cycle begins with teachers' personal knowledge and experience of learn-
ing and teaching. In the first phase, Examining Current Practice, teachers explore their personal
theories of learning and teaching and connect these not only to what occurs daily in the class-
room but also to formal theories of learning and teaching that have been derived from behavioral
and cognitive science, research on the brain, and multiple conceptions of intelligence. In phase
two, Making Decisions, teachers connect their beliefs about learning to their views of curricu-
lum; examine practice more deeply in light of local, state, and national standards; identify
matches and gaps between the goals and expectations for students and student achievement;
create a shared vision for student learning in their school/district; and set priorities that will lead
to the realization of their vision of student learning.
Key Questions For Making Decisions
What is my understanding of curriculum? Are content, performance, and opportunity-to-learn
standards reflected in my teaching practice? What is the fit between my learning goals for stu-
dents and the expectations articulated in state and local standards and assessments? What
guides my decisions about priorities for student learning?
Outcomes:
Articulation of teachers' beliefs about curriculum (curriculum as fact, activity, inquiry, etc.)
Knowledge of other views of curriculum (curriculum theorists, teachers, researchers, com-
munity members, parents, textbook publishers)
Understanding of content and performance standards in the state
Indepth analysis of the fit between current teaching goals and content standards
Comparison of current expectations for students and performance standards
Translation of standards into classroom practice
Agreement on priorities for student learning to ensure student attainment of standards
Identification of need areas (teacher knowledge, materials, planning) to achieve priority goals
3
To fully explore the connections among standards, curriculum, and student learning, two (six-
hour) meetings are recommended. This time frame allows an indepth examination of the
connection between curriculum content and content standards, the relationship between student
work and standards, and the fit between expectations for students and authentic student learn-
ing. The two-day format can be completed in two successive days if preparation activities have
occurred prior to the meetings. However, a period of two to three weeks between meetings
allows teachers to reflect on the ideas discussed on the first day and to collect and organize
information needed in the second session.
Standards, Curriculum, and Student Learning
Standards-based curriculum reform is a strategy to improve student academic achievement
by setting rigorous expectations for performance in academic subjects (McLaughlin &
Shepard, 1995). Proponents maintain that setting clear, challenging academic expectations will
motivate students to expend the effort required for high levels of achievement. The application
of the standards to all students is an essential aspect of standards-based curriculum reform.
Standards are seen as a way to provide direction for teachers in terms of the curriculum
designed for students and the types of instructional practice needed to improve student achieve-
ment (Gandal, 1996).
What are standards?
Standards are stated expectations for student academic achievement. They identify what stu-
dents should know and be able to do as a result of their K-12 schooling. The National Education
Goals Panel, created through Goals 2000, described two
interdependent standards: content
standards and performance standards. Content stan-
Examining Current
dards identify what the student is expected to
Practice
know after participating in a particular course of
study. Performance standards indicate how
cb
well the student has learned the material.
Performance standards indicate
Improving Learning
the nature of the evidence (e.g.,
Researching
Maki!
and Teaching
Our Classrooms
up an experiment
setting
to
through Inquiry
ability
demonstrate
scientific
to
use
method) and the level of performance consid-
ered satisfactory (e.g., basic, proficient, expert)
(Anderson et al., 1996).
Creating Optimal
Learning Environments
Some critics of standards-based curriculum maintain that
inequalities in physical and instructional resources in the nation's schools will interfere with
many students' ability to meet challenging standards. This concern prompted a discussion of
school delivery standards, later called opportunity-to-learn standards (OTL), which describe
resources and conditions that should be available so that all children have an equal chance of
performing at required levels. Conditions that fall
this category of standards include
in
4
knowedgeable teachers, effective learning activities, quality instructional materials, and a psy-
chologically and physically safe school environment (McLaughlin & Shepard, 1995).
What is the difference between benchmarks and standards?
Benchmarks may be thought of as elements of the content standards. Generally, they are
more specific statements of what students are to accomplish by a certain time period.
Benchmarks identify specific learning behaviors that allow teachers to set goals and engage
students in activities that assist students to meet standards. Benchmarks may be organized
by grade level (grade one), grade clusters (grades six through eight), age ranges, or school
levels (intermediate).
The following examples from the state of Washington standards illustrate the relationship
between the content standards and benchmarks:
Content Standard for Reading Comprehension: Understand the meaning of what is read
(global statement).
Grade Seven Benchmark: readily identify and comprehend the main idea and supporting facts
and details; summarize ideas in own words (more specific behavior).
Who has developed content standards?
The National Education Goals Report: Building a Nation of Learners specifically identified acad-
emic achievement in two of the national goals. These goals stated that American students would
demonstrate mastery in challenging subject matter and that, by the year 2000, students in the
United States would excel in mathematics and science. In 1994, the improvement of student
achievement through high standards for all students became national policy when the Goals
2000: Educate America Act and the Improve America's Schools Act were signed into law
(Diegmueller, 1995).
Goals 2000 sparked discussion about curriculum, assessment, and the possibility of national
standards that would focus educational reform. The National Council of the Teachers of
Mathematics (NCTM) was a leader in this effort, and this organization's curriculum and evalua-
tion standards revealed the potential of national standards for comprehensive reform. More than
40 states used NCTM standards to revamp mathematics curricula (Ravitch, 1992). Professional
groups that have also developed standards include the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (Project 2061), National Science Teachers Association (Scope,
Sequence, and Coordination of National Science Education Standards), the International
Reading Association (IRA), and the National Council of the Teachers of English (NCTE). The
National Center for History in the Schools published three sets of standards for K-4, United
States history, and world history (Diegmueller, 1995).
Since the Goals 2000 education summit in 1989, most states have designed content and per-
formance standards as part of school improvement efforts. By 1991, 31 states had identified
content standards, and by April 1995 every state except Iowa had set standards at the state level
(Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory [McREL], 1996).
5